Article: Audiophile Reference Music Server For A Song

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi jriver - I think JR MC has serious problems playing back the Reference Recordings HRx 24/176.4 material. I know there was some discussion on your forum about this issue, but I have yet to hear about a resolution to the problem. Any update?

[jriver]

Hi Chris,<br />

Those files should work. MC supports WAV playback at whatever the DAC can do. If the files don't play, it may be hardware.<br />

<br />

I just found a thread on this here:<br />

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=47256.0<br />

<br />

Alex B said this:<br />

"According to the information on the referencerecordings' site the so called HRx files are in the 24-bit/176.4 kHz wave format.<br />

<br />

"I just tested a couple of 24-bit/176.4 kHz/2-channel wave files. MC didn't have any problems with them. My sound card can handle up to 96 kHz so the Windows kernel mixer "helpfully" resampled the output to 96 kHz. Naturally I couldn't use the ASIO output mode, which bypasses the kernel mixer, because the sample rate is not supported by my HW."<br />

<br />

We will investigate further. Thanks for your time.<br />

[silverarrows]

Just trying to tie in the AIFF bit on MediaMonkey from here and the boards, were you able to get the same metadata while using MediaMonkey?

[Monk]

"MediaMonkey<br />

Just trying to tie in the AIFF bit on MediaMonkey from here and the boards, were you able to get the same metadata while using MediaMonkey?"<br />

<br />

Media Monkey does not recognize AIFF metadata tags, and does not plan to do so in the forseeable future. Use WAV with Media Monkey. It will read those tags.<br />

<br />

Dave.<br />

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Dave - Maybe I'm losing it this afternoon so please correct me :~)<br />

<br />

Since WAV doesn't support tags and AIFF does support tags but not in MediaMonkey, wouldn't AIFF support the same data as WAV in MediaMonkey? Worded a different way, if neither support tags in MediaMonkey wouldn't AIFF be just as good as WAV?<br />

<br />

Help me if I'm lost it today!

[ldolse]

WAV totally supports tags. In fact there are more PC applications supporting WAV id3 tags than there are AIFF (iTunes being the only one). <br />

<br />

Both WAV and AIFF have been extended by a number of developers including Apple (itunes AIFF), Microsoft (WMP11 ripped wav), Mediamonkey (WAV files), Dbpoweramp (both AIFF & WAV)<br />

<br />

Here is a link describing the WAV format:<br />

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/courses/422/projects/WaveFormat/<br />

<br />

The relevant text is under the notes header:<br />

Quote<br />

"There may be additional subchunks in a Wave data stream. If so, each will have a char[4] SubChunkID, and unsigned long SubChunkSize, and SubChunkSize amount of data."<br />

<br />

Essentially what's been done in all these implementations is a new RIFF subchunk has been added with the header ID3, along with an additional padding character to meet the char[4] spec. The subchunk then conforms to the ID3V2 specification. The equivalent documentation for AIFF is lacking, but it is believed to be roughly identical to WAV.<br />

<br />

Some useful threads on the subject:<br />

http://www.anytag.de/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t8328.html<br />

http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=131130<br />

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t43021.html<br />

http://forum.dbpoweramp.com/showthread.php?p=81230&highlight=wave+list+id3v2#post81230 <br />

<br />

Some may argue that this isn't a 'standard', but the tagged files work across multiple applications, so it's close enough to a 'standard' for me.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi ldolse - Wow, what can I say. Thanks for all the information. I agree with you about that it's close enough to be a standard. I'm guessing album art is still missing from AIFF.

[ldolse]

Well, I'd just been opening some bugs on some open source projects to support wav and aiff tags, so it was really just a matter of copying and pasting info I'd already put together. Hopefully we can get even more widespread support.<br />

<br />

I thought AIFF supported album art? I just moved and renamed an HDTracks AIFF file, and the album art seemed to move along with it...

[ldolse]

Turns out OS X (the operating system) actually support tagged WAV as well as AIFF. Right click on either a tagged WAV or AIFF and select 'Get Info', and you'll see the album details in the 'More info' section of the file properties. <br />

<br />

Strange that OS X can see the WAV tags and iTunes can't.... Should be a simple fix for Apple to fully support wav on itunes then.

[Wavelength]

Guys,<br />

<br />

The problem with WAV files and tags is that it is not embedded in the file. Therefore if you don't save off the tag info and you loose your drive then it is merely a bunch of wav files with no info.<br />

<br />

The nice thing about AIFF is you can send them to someone you can have only the AIFF files on a drive and then you have everything. Because AIFF has the tag info embedded inside the file.<br />

<br />

Thanks<br />

Gordon

[ldolse]

I beg to differ:<br />

<br />

http://rapidshare.com/files/202448133/Sample.wav<br />

<br />

Load that into Mediamonkey, Dbpoweramp, Tag&Rename, or right click and use 'Get Info' in OS X, and you'll see tags. That file is tagged with both LIST and ID3v2, so in some cases some programs may be using the info under the LIST subchunk, but the tags definitely move with the file.

[robertl]

Chris:<br />

<br />

I've been talking with Steve Nugent at Empirical, and we have a question: Will a Mac Mini (or any Mac) support 24/192 output through the built in optical port or even USB?<br />

If so, my solution for a server would be a Mini with either of Steve's interfaces to my MBL DAC... otherwise I probably need to go with a box that supports a Lynx card....<br />

<br />

Thanks,<br />

Bob Liss

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Bob - This is a weird one. The Macs will not support 24/192 via optical when running OS X Leopard, but when running Vista on the Macs they do support 24/192. USB would require drivers and I'm 99% sure 24/192 would work.<br />

<br />

I still prefer the Lynx.

[Wavelength]

Chris,<br />

<br />

Not so with USB... well almost not true. OSX 10.5.x supports Class 2 Audio which means it supports up to 32 channels at 24/192 or really anything even 32/384 stereo if the device supported it. So if the device supports Class 2.0 Audio like the EMU 0404 USB then yes it will support 192 with out drivers.<br />

<br />

That is not true of Vista or XP, there it would require a driver.<br />

<br />

I am not sure what the deal is with the 24/192 optical on OSX but I will tell you it's not a very good version of Toslink. Toslink really should not be used over 24/96 it really does not have the bandwidth required for 192.<br />

<br />

Thanks<br />

Gordon

[kana813]

Toslink fiber has a bandwidth of 40MHZ at 50 meters.<br />

<br />

Toshiba Digital Audio modules TORX141/TOTX141 can do 15MHZ, see:<br />

<br />

http://www.toshiba.com/taec/components/ProdLineGuide/toslink.pdf<br />

<br />

24/192 stereo needs a bandwidth of 9.216MHZ.

[robertl]

Gordon:<br />

<br />

Taken from the page on the EMU unit - http://www.emu.com/products/product.asp?product=15185<br />

<br />

"* Macintosh analog operation up to 96kHz and digital operation up to 48kHz only at this time."<br />

<br />

Bob Liss

[Wavelength]

Guys,<br />

<br />

So what if Toshiba says it can do 192.... when have you ever seen that it can do it correctly?<br />

<br />

So much of the argument has been jitter with SPDIF. Remember there are more aspect to SPDIF than that. I look at three aspects of SPDIF when I build a receiver or transmitter.<br />

1) DATA integrity. When an SPDIF unit receives a framing or data integrity error it merely repeats the last valid frame.<br />

2) MCLK generation... the big deal is that with SPDIF you have a FRAME (equates to Word Clock). That has to be PLL multiplied by 256 to create a valid master clock. This is no easy task and can be radically different depending on chip type, surrounding circuit, what ever.<br />

3) Jitter<br />

<br />

With Toslink actually 2 and 3 are not the problem as much as #1. The faster it get's the higher these numbers become.<br />

<br />

Sorry I thought the EMU was a Class 2 audio device. It seems it set all the endpoints to vendor specific thereby requiring drivers.<br />

<br />

Thanks<br />

Gordon

[kana813]

You stated:<br />

<br />

"Toslink does not have the bandwidth required for 192"<br />

<br />

Not surprising coming from a guy who sells USB products, but it's not true. <br />

<br />

Somehow you know there's going to be data integrity errors.<br />

<br />

Have you ever tried any of the new higher bandwidth TX/RX modules?<br />

<br />

I'll bet you haven't.<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

<br />

[Wavelength]

Kana,<br />

<br />

Yes I have... I have the Prism dScope III with Toslink, AES and BNC/RCA. One of the only instruments available to test SPDIF with jitter results, eye pattern and waveform integrity to 24/192.<br />

<br />

<cite>24/192 stereo needs a bandwidth of 9.216MHZ.</cite><br />

<br />

If the bit rate is 12.288MHz and the encoding requires a bandwith of 16x then how did you come up with 9.216Mhz???<br />

<br />

Thanks<br />

Gordon

[TandbergNut]

After reading your article, I did some running around looking at older hardware and ended up with an IBM Thinkcentre refurb from a local store. Although a bit lean on extras, it does have a P4 3 GHz chip. There are also s 3 card slots, and room for at least one more hard drive. It came loaded with a new install of XP Pro. I had 2 GB of correct RAM sitting on my desk had been collecting dust for years. That was the first improvement.<br />

<br />

After some more reading, I settled on a SIIG Soundwave audio card for my first test. The card and software installed very cleanly, and it is now connected to my main stereo through my MSB DAC. For step one of my test, I did not want to lay out lots of money for an audio card only to find out that this format was not to my liking.<br />

<br />

I ripped a few CD's with Windows Media Audio Losless compression, and am playing them with WMP for the moment.<br />

<br />

The sound is quite listenable, parobbly a bit better than my dedicated CD player, an Onkyo Integra DPC 8.5 that also plays into the MSB DAC.<br />

<br />

Once the 1TB drive shows up, I will have spent some $320 and about two hours putting my server together. Now, I have to figure out where to fit it into my home theater.<br />

<br />

Thanks for planting the idea!

[bschray]

I apologize in advance if this is the wrong place to pose this question. I am new to the site and considering using my PC as a source for a Benchmark DAC as well as other sources (DVD player and cable box). This thread and others on this site seem to strongly infer that a configuration using Lynx Studio AES16 PCI card connected to the DAC is substantially superior to a USB connection to the DAC (presumably without the Lynx Studio AES16 PCI card). Is that a correct conclusion? If that is correct, for those that follow this course is there any reason to be concerned about DAC USB capability?

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Bill - Welcome to Computer Audiophile. There is no standing rule that any interface (USB, AES, FireWire, S/PDIF) is always better than another. In my opinion the Lynx card with AES output is wonderful because it is bit perfect and can output up to 24/192 where as USB is for the most part limited to 24/96 today. So far I've preferred the Lynx card to almost every other interface i can think of right now. This could mean nothing in your system however because everyone is different. There are some awesome USB interfaces available right now and some people suggest the sound quality cannot be topped. Either way you can get great sound.

[bob2591]

Hi Chris,<br />

<br />

This server sounds appealing, but your statement below got my attention. Would you explain what this means? I am using a Mac mini but want to explore other options.<br />

<br />

"Not to mention my Mac systems may save me from blowing my tweeters. The same cannot be said for some MediaMonkey and Windows systems". <br />

<br />

Thanks,<br />

<br />

Bob

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi Bob - Here is what I'm talking about :~(<br />

<br />

<br />

http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blown-tweeters

[cbman]

Chris (and other members)<br />

<br />

Thank you for the article regarding the music server for a song. I am new to the idea of a music server. First, thought was to go with USB port out of the computer. However, I understand that you will get better sound quality with a digital sound card. Your suggested music server used a Lynx studio sound card. The Lynx sound card is a little be more than what I want to spend to try out a music server. In doing additional investigations I found an M-Audio 192 sound card. I understand this card has a digital coxial out and also analog out. I was also advised this card had a built in DAC. What do you thinjk of the M-Audio 192? Does unit have a good DAC that comes on the card or do you still need an add on DAC? Any other suggestions regardng a digital sound card in the M-Audio 192 price range? Also, what is your recommendation on a reasonable priced tube DAC?<br />

<br />

Thanks for trying to help be learn more about building a music server.<br />

<br />

CBMAN